Do You Plan to Buy an 8K TV?

“8K is not overkill.” That was one of the key takeaways from last week’s interview with Chris Chinnock, executive director of the 8K Association (8KA). The additional pixels in an 8K TV screen — four times that of a 4K screen — help reduce digital artifacts to produce an image that’s cleaner, more realistic, and more emotionally impactful. “It is hard to argue that creating more emotional impact is not beneficial,” Chinnock says. “8K screens are clearly needed as screen sizes grow in order to maintain pixel density.” (Click here for the interview.)

Perhaps most compelling at this early juncture is the video upscaling capabilities of these new state-of-the-art sets, which draw on artificial intelligence (AI) to, as Chinnock puts it, “make lower resolution images look extraordinary.” And, yes, next-generation 8K technology is already being embraced by the top TV brands. Samsung, Sony, and LG have had 8K sets in their lineups for more than a year now — Samsung and LG offer 8K screens sizes from 65 to 88 inches at prices ranging from $3,200 to $30,000 — and other brands are ready to introduce 8K TVs later this year. All of which brings us to the question, does it make sense to buy an 8K TV before content is widely available? More to the point, do you plan to buy an 8K TV? Don’t forget to leave a comment to explain your choice!

Do You Plan to Buy an 8K TV?
Yes! I’m eager to take advantage of the new features and capabilities state-of-the-art 8K TVs bring to the table.
10% (172 votes)
Yes, but I will wait until set prices come down and 8K programming is available.
28% (483 votes)
I have no plans to buy an 8K TV now or in the immediate future.
33% (559 votes)
I have no plans to buy an 8K TV but will reconsider when 8K programming becomes widely available.
28% (483 votes)
Total votes: 1697

mars2k's picture

Was waiting for really good Large OLED 4k to become affordable but now looks like 8k is the wait for. Just recently it seemed as if progress was centered around processing rather than panel now I think its both.

Old Ben's picture

I read the article last week and, frankly, it seemed like the given reasons for 8K amount to nothing for the vast majority of consumers. Chris mentioned the "quality of the pixels" but didn't explain how the pixels of an 8K TV would be better than those of a 4K TV. I'm also not sure I follow the argument about reduced digital artifacts either. Is he talking about the staircase effect in diagonal lines in the image? Is he talking about digital compression artifacts? If the latter, it seems like increasing resolution will likely result in more compression artifacts rather than less. If the former, then Chris seems to concede what many of us know, stating that "4K HDR depends on a number of factors. These include how far from the screen you sit, the size of the screen, the nature of the content, how well it was prepared and delivered, and the quality of the eyes observing the images." He tries to minimize it, but for the vast majority of us our combination of screen size and viewing distance are such that we will not be able to discern a resolution difference between 4K and 8K.

Let's not forget that the main driver behind technology improvements is to get consumers to open their wallets to acquire the next big thing. Almost all of the technology improvements over the last 25 years (e.g., flat screens, high definition, ultra high definition, DVD, Blu Ray, digital surround sound) have been worth opening our wallets for. 8K is the first technology that doesn't feel worth (what will undoubtedly be) the high cost.

rjmedich's picture

Old Ben nailed it. Unless we're talking IMAX here—even on a big projection screen—as long as the image is pristine, compression is low, and bitrate is high—I can't see a reason to go beyond 4K

Bob Ankosko's picture
We brought your questions to the attention of Mr. Chinnock. Here's his response:

"It is certainly valid to ask if the increase in picture quality of an 8K TV is better than a 4K version. And yes, all the factors I mentioned for 8K viewing apply to 4K viewing as well. Ultimately, the value of 8K is in the eye of the beholder which will clearly vary. The best advice is to simply try to do a side by side comparison of a same-sized 4K TV playing 4K content with the same content upscaled on an 8K TV of the same size. Reduction of artifacts is mostly going to be the result of the higher 8K capture which will lower noise and improve contrast and sharpness even if finished at lower resolution. There may still be compression artifacts, which unfortunately, consumers are unable to control the bit rate to reduce these effects. For screen sizes above 65 inches or so, you might want to consider an 8K screen to maintain the pixel density as 4K pixel density will get a little thin at larger screen sizes. Plus, 8K TVs offer the best processing and other features, which may be a compelling reason to purchase as well."

brenro's picture

HDMI 2.1 and ATSC 3.0.

Olaf the Snowman's picture

If the price is right :-) ........

drny's picture

I completely agree with the analysis and comments made by 'Old Ben'.
That being said:If Lg's88Z9 was priced at 5k or less, perhaps I and many others would jump into the 8k buyers pool. An 8k screen at less than 85" is fools'gold. Even at 85" 8k tvs are not as dramatic as a Native 4k premium projector's image on a 140 or larger 2:35 to 1 screen.

danne's picture

Assuming normal viewing distance, how large a TV do you need to actually see the difference between 4k and 8k? 100"? 120"?

My current 4k TV is a 55" and my next TV will probably be a 65", so 8k isn't very relevant to me.

Bob Ankosko's picture
We brought your question to the attention of Mr. Chinnock. Here's his response:

As screen sizes increase the pixel density (i.e. pixels per inch or ppi) decreases. 8K screens increase this pixel density to maintain or improve the density over 4K screen. If you think the pixel density on your 55” 4K screen is fine, then the equivalent pixel density for an 8K screen is 110”. If you want increased pixel density, top of the line processing and best in class image quality, then 8K can make sense.

rmesick's picture

There's not a lot of 4K programming out there and now the manufacturers what us to drop even more money on an 8K? As Old Ben mentioned, not many people are going to truly benefit from 8K anyways. The only people who may benefit are the same ones that think that $1,000 is a small price to pay for speaker wire.